Report on The 4th Regional Workshop of the CMLN

“Co-Management Phase III: Learning By Doing, Evaluation and Planning”
Chiang Mai, Thailand
July 7-11, 2008
Documentation by Sam Cartmell 

Executive Summary
 The 4th Regional Co-Management Learning Network (CMLN) Workshop comes at an important turning point in the history of the CMLN Project. Phase 1 of the CMLN Project is slated to come to a close in September 2008. The 4th Regional Workshop aimed to present and share the progress made by the CMLN country sites during the entire process. An additional aim of the 4th Regional Workshop was for the Network members to decide whether it would be beneficial for the CMLN Project to proceed into a Phase 2, and if so to discuss expectations and to strategize on the focus of the second Phase.

 The first CMLN Workshop aimed to create a common understanding among participants by looking at co-management concepts, practices and tools in the preparation phase of CM. The second CMLN Workshop aimed to build on the first by looking at the process of social communication necessary for successful CM. The third CMLN Workshop focused on preparing the sites to go to the next level – negotiation; with each site reviewing their present situation and building their own negotiation tools and methods suitable for the different contexts they work in. This fourth CMLN Workshop provided an opportunity for the CMLN country teams to reflect on the lessons learnt throughout the three earlier stages of the CM process, and to share their lessons learned with the rest of the Network. The country sites also had the opportunity to think about and discuss future strategies and actions to ensure the successful maintenance of the CM achievements already made, as well as to expand these achievements to other areas.

The participants made good use of this Workshop to present and reflect on their progress, to ask for advice from the other country sites, and to share their lessons learned. Some of the significant lessons learned were:
     commitment of the field facilitators is critical to maintain the participation of local community members in the process of co-management;
     “slowly but tangible”;
     policy recognition does not always led to strong support in practice;
     CM is not compatible with top-down approaches;
     focus on potential IP community livelihood benefits of conservation arrangements can help to reduce conflict;
     it is necessary to balance community needs and wants;
     an official inventory of community conservation practices may be useful in getting greater recognition for CM arrangements at the National policy level;
     capacity building is necessary for all CM stakeholders (e.g. IP organizations and Park Authorities require capacity building regarding good techniques for success CM arrangements).
 For the Phase 2 of CMLN two new Objectives were put forward as necessary to build on the past successes of the CMLN Project. First, it was agreed that the socio-economic well-being (specifically, livelihoods based on alternative IP values and development models) of IP communities and their organizations is crucial to the successful maintenance of Co-Management arrangements. Thus a 4 th  Objective was added to the CMLN Project:
“Strengthen IP organisations through securing their economic basis as well as the economic basis of community livelihoods in harmony with their unique values and aspirations.”
 Second, it was agreed that the CMLN was well-positioned to engage in advocacy and networking activities outside of the existing CMLN Network. Thus a 5th  Objective was added to the CMLN Project:
“Strengthening in-country and regional Networks.”

 In addition, strong support was given to AIPP to continue as the CMLN project holder, and for the CMLN Regional Coordinator to move forward to ensure the establishment of a CMLN Phase 2. Exciting times.

 The Workshop proceedings followed the proposed Agenda closely, the only major deviation was the addition of a session on possible Protected Area scenarios in place of the Participatory Action Research evaluation scheduled for the afternoon of Day 4. A summary of the 5-day Workshop is outlined below.

     Days 1 and 2 focused on the presentation of updates on the progress of negotiations at the different CMLN sites (successes, limitations, etc.); and the sharing of lessons learned from the Co-Management process thus far
     Day 3 was dedicated to a field visit to Ob’Luang National Park and Khun Pae village
     Day 4 activities included a debrief and discussion about the field visit; strategy sessions regarding the future of the CMLN Project with the goal of identifying present day actions to help ensure positive outcomes.
     Day 5 was dedicated to answering the question “CMLN Phase 2 – where to from here?”
1. Opening of the 4th CMLN Workshop
The Workshop was begun with an acknowledgment of the tragic accident that befell members of the Laos team en route. All present observed two minutes of silence. 

There was also an acknowledgment that the Philippine team couldn’t make it to the Workshop due a recent typhoon in the area of the Philippine site.
Jannie Lasimbang (Secretary General, AIPP) welcomed Workshop participants. She outlined the development of the CMLN process and the CMLN role in increasing the rights of IP in PA management in Southeast Asia.
Sakonsak Wachiranwat (Director of the 16th Conservation Area) made a short speech welcoming all the country teams to Chiang Mai.
Plas Liang (Community representative, Cambodia) led all present in a prayer honouring / communicating with the spirits of those who died in the accident.
Brief Introduction of the CMLN Project
 A Co-Management Learning Network (CMLN) has been established to implement and exchange experiences of co-management in protected areas between learning sites in 7 countries of Southeast Asia. Indigenous communities in South East Asia are often more heavily and unfairly impacted due to many protected areas being declared over their traditional lands. Up to now the important potential contribution of  local indigenous communities into the sustainable management of the protected areas has not been appreciated, encouraged or seriously addressed. Given some of the problems identified in ‘coercive’ approaches to protected area management and the strained relationships between many indigenous communities and protected area authorities, this project is based on the premise that cooperation and mutual respect will provide more effective and sustainable opportunities to conserve Southeast Asia’s important biodiversity.

 The Regional CMLN Workshops provide an opportunity for all CMLN country teams to join together and collectively build their Protected Area Co-management capacity. The Workshops are also an opportunity for CMLN country teams to share their experiences and evaluate their progress. 
2. Objectives of the Workshop (session facilitated by Dr. Grazia Borrini-Feyerabend; Vice Chair CEESP WCPA IUCN/ CEESP/ TGER/ TILCEPA)
The objectives of the 4th Regional CMLN Workshop are:

1) strengthening practice and knowledge sharing on Co-management in practice – exchanging experiences strengthens us all;

2) learning from the past and the rest of the world (outside of Southeast Asia) – assistance in accessing appropriate tools;

3) looking ahead together to identify future needs and objectives (CMLN Phase 2) – do we want to move forward and do more work (and what will it be), or do we want CMLN to end here?

3. Country Team Phase I and Phase II Presentations
Cambodia Team Presentation 
a) Introduction and background
     Since 1993 the site was declared as National Park (Virachey National Park) by Royal Decree
     Local People (IP) used to live in the national park where they practiced their traditional means to manage natural resources 

• Parties engaged in the VNP management so far: 
     Park authority intends to conserve the natural resources in the park
     Local authority aims to protect the natural resource and improve livings of the people
     Local IP People (CPA Committees and members) need access to the resource for their subsistence 

b) Preparatory phase

• We did not complete the preparatory phase, we have:
    Improved communication amongst the community members
    Improved collaboration with the park authority
    Enhance capacity for local IP through various awareness rising activities
• The start-up team is important because it enables the team to deal with different issues

• Social communication is important to share information (building trust )

• Logistics, procedure, and rules of negotiation are critical to think ahead as it make the negotiation proceed with good outcomes. 
Lessons learnt from preparatory phase
 .    Commitment of the field facilitators is critical to maintain the participation of local community members in the process of co-management
 .    Beside strengthening the local institution (IP organization) convincing the park authority is needed to proceed toward a co-management
c) Negotiation phase & d) Learning by Doing phase – not yet reached
Discussion of Cambodian presentation
Responding to a question about whether there is a special mechanism for communication between the 3 parties (implementing agency, PA & IP communities), Sokchea (Research Initiatives Manager, CBNRMLI) explained that there are several small village groups (about 20). Each smaller group represents about 7-10 families and has representatives on larger Community Protected Area group. The larger CPA group is recognized by Park authorities and work together regularly. CPA committee members meet with the smaller groups to collect and exchange information. This is a two-way process: up from the village level and dissemination from above to the village level. For example, information about illegal logging moves up the chain to the Park authorities.

There are Community Protected Area Regulations that outline the rights and responsibilities of the community members. A study found that 60% of community members understood their role in the CPA. This is an improvement since before the CM process when community members thought conservation was only the responsibility of the Park authorities.
In response to a question about the benefits received by the IP communities in return for acting as the “eyes” of the Park authority,

Den (Warden Community Development, VNP)  commented that according to Cambodian law no one is allowed to live or farm within the Park boundaries, but people do so close to the Park, and authorities allow them to enter the PA as they wish in order to collect things for their livelihood. Also, Park authorities provide incentives (money, food, gasoline) in return for information, as well as providing IP community members with employment in running a guest house and as tour guides.

In response to questions about the effect the creation of the CPA had on the livelihood of local IP community members, Plas Liang (O’Tung CPA Community Representative) noted that in the past they had no access to school, health care, and other services, and they now have these benefits. Many older people wanted to return to past way of life, but the younger generation do not. Mauch (O’Tung CPA Community Representative) noted that there was some concern about the next generation’s access to resources without the CPA committee. They are happy that communities are able to go to park land as they wish for their livelihood, although they are not allowed into all Park land but only the CPA. Den noted that CPA regulation dictates what community members can and cannot do: they can collect Bamboo, vegetables, fallen trees. They cannot cut down trees, practice slash and burn agriculture.

The comment was made that the Cambodia Co-Management approach appears to be very top-down (from Park authorities and the Provincial government) where decision are made then brought to the communities. 

Grazia commented that the Cambodian government realizes the benefits of open communication with IP communities (e.g. the alliance between PA and IP communities is important for conservation and for equity and human rights). But can the existing negotiation structure become the legal governing structure of the Virachey National Park? In other countries around the world this is the case. CM has official / legal basis (e.g. working management plans, distributing the benefits from tourism, etc.) These are called the “governance bodies”. This is CM in the “implementation phase”.
Vietnam Team Presentation 
“Co-management? OR Collaborative Management? 
in Mu Cang Chai Species/Habitat Conservation Area”
Main parties interested in PA management:
 .     FFI – interest in flagship species and habitat conservation; sustainable local livelihoods
 .     Forest Protection Department – forest protection
 .     Local government (commune and district levels) – rural development
 .     Local communities – livelihoods
Activities: Collaborative Management of ‘Protected Areas’
Participatory ‘Protected Area’ development
 .     Zoning & demarcation – PLUP
 .     Gazettement – contributions to investment plans
 .     Operational Management Planning – contributions to OMPs

Participatory ‘Protected Area’ functioning 
 .     Community ranger forces – biodiversity, community outreach, law enforcement and fire control
 .     Village-level regulations on forest protection – negotiated agreement
 .     Inter-commune regulation on forest protection and management 

Participatory ‘Protected Area’ decision-making
 .     Co-management of protected areas – new institutional structures & mechanisms to facilitate joint decision-making
What we have done to promote CM:
 .     19 target villages selected based on needs and opportunities assessment (consultation WS – FPC and PA MB).
 .     FPC rules and regulations agreed to and posted publicly.
 .     FPC trained in accounting, personnel management, and report writing
 .     Stewardship negotiation preparation meetings held (agreement signed)
Lessons Learnt:
 .     CM  – potential benefits for conservation & livelihoods; reduces conflict
 .     CM – promoted in policy but not put into practice by supporting legislation 
 .     Top-down process to gazettement / management of PAs do not consider CM
 .     The enabling environment for developing models of CM is still weak
 .     FPC – quite a new model to Vietnam; further investment to realize potential
 .     Co-management takes 10 years to complete  first cycle – long-term commitment from all stakeholders
Discussion of Vietnamese presentation
 In response to a question about the mechanisms for participation in PA management, Lam noted that village level meetings were held from the beginning of the process, although there were different degrees of IP participation at different stages.
IP participation in drawing boundaries
 The actual boundaries of the PA were drawn by the local communities. The process involved training on mapping technology. The process enabled people to say where their villages were, and to make the PA boundaries around the village areas. This is the reason of the “U” shape of the PA – there are villages in the middle. The communities have a clear interest in the maintenance of the PA because it is the source of their livelihood. In 2008, a process began whereby groups of 10 households form 1 group and can apply for government support in return for their management of the PA forest. 
IP participation in developing PA management rules and regulations  In reality this process was top-down, because it was based on the National “special-use forest” law. In the Stewardship Negotiations the FPC was brought in to be part of the management structure of the PA. The Park Authority was reluctant to share power with the FPC, but the process was to create respect/relationship to convince the PA authority to share power. With any new implementation all the players are invited to meetings to discuss the process.
Malaysia Team Presentation 
The CUZ negotiation process is on-going in Sabah Park, although much progress has been made.
CUZ defined as “areas where existing cultivation and forest resource collection are found to occur inside the park, and where traditional human activities will be allowed to continue under the supervision of Sabah Parks. ”
The CUZ Process Objectives: 
 .     To balance the existing local community needs and conservation.  
 .     To encourage participation and collaboration of the local communities in park management.
 .     Preserve the cultures and traditional knowledge of the local communities

PACOS organized two workshops with the Village Heads, the Villages Security and Development Chairman and the Sabah Parks management to formulate the CUZ agreement. Also invited were representatives from all stockholders (e.g. government agencies/NGO /MP/District Offices). 
These workshops led to the creation of the Community Use Zone Management Agreement – “Ulu Senageng/Mongool Baru Villages : Community Use Zone Management Agreement 2006”.
Three 3 major issues during the negotiation process have been:
1. CUZ Boundary 
2. Permitted and prohibited activities within the CUZ.
3. Establishment of Community Use Zone Management Committee (CUZMC)
Areas of Agreement in Negotiation Process
There are 2 areas of common vision and agreement between the communities and park: 1) need for conservation within PA; & 2) that the communities are able to remain where they are.
Areas of Disagreement in Negotiation Process
The major issue of debate in the negotiation process is the size of the CUZ (CUZ boundary demarcation)
Lessons learned from CMLN
1.     Slowly but tangible  
2.     Balancing between needs and wants from community 
3.     Convincing the park authority of need to move toward real co-management 
4.     Must be professional   (PAKOS/Parks)
Discussion of Malaysian presentation
It was suggested that one way to resolve the dispute between the communities and the PA authority about the size of the CUZ is to conduct an analysis of the actual “needs” of the communities and base the size of the CUZ on this research? A technical report on this issue (maybe by a 3rd  party) could serve to reduce the level of conflict. Another suggestion was to have a
Community USE Zone & a Community LITTLE USE Zone  with different rules and regulations concerning benefits and obligations?
The IP position in Sabah Park was outlined by Siangon (Malaysian community rep): “We need the wider green areas to be used for collection of forest products and hunting. We do not want to ‘develop’ it into farm land. Our existing agricultural land is sufficient.”
Thailand Team Presentation 
a) Stakeholders
 .     Government (Park / Watershed management Unit) & TAO (Local Government Unit)
 .     IPs (Karen, Northern Thai, Hmong) 
 .     NGOs  (IMPECT/ RAKTHAI/CMLN / World vision/ Royal Project Etc) 
 .     SLUSE (Chiang Mai and Mae Jo University)

The implementation of Co-Management at the local level is clear but not at the (national) policy level.
b) Preparation Phase completed
 .     Co-Management: implementing shared activities concerning forest, water and soil management.
 .     Co-Governance: decision-making structure concerning rights to use and access natural resources (PA60%: IPs40%)

Strengths of the preparation phases were: 
1. Multi-parties (Government representatives: Park-WS management Unit; Local Government Unit: TAO; People: upland and lowland community representatives, NGOs 
2. Same objectives and planning
3. Watershed committee is owner of the network, the committee runs all activities in the watershed
c) Negotiation Phase completed
 .     Land demarcation
 .     Village regulations; natural resource use
 .     Stakeholders forum; monthly meetings

d) Learning By Doing Phase is on-going

• Common plan for future
     Land use demarcation
     Training and study visits 
     Creation of the watershed committee 

Discussion of Thailand presentation
 commented that at the start of the CMLN process 4 years ago the main concerns were that Karen living inside the National Park area, but now the main concern
is that the Karen are living inside a watershed?
Pornsak (Superintendent, Ob’Luang National Park)
 responded there has previously been conflict between the highland and lowland communities over water, and that when the National Park was created the authorities took the opportunity to address this conflict.
 It was asked whether there is an inventory of community conservation practices, and are these recognized by the park authorities? Pornsak responded that the practices are accepted and encouraged by the Park authorities, but not legally accepted.
What do the lowland communities contribute to the process? What benefits are the highland management villages receiving for their conservation efforts?
IP position: “In practice, with the view that sees the watershed as a whole unit, the highland and lowland communities should work out the costs and benefits in fair proportions for both parties.”
Park Authority position: “The negotiation provides a social space for the winners / losers to come together through the mediation of the Park Authorities and local government administration. The highlanders are “illegal” in their current location. Park authorities thus “allow” highland communities to continue living there but with demarcated land-use. Local administrators and Park Authorities visit communities and give assurances that they will be allowed to remain but under the understanding that the watershed must be conserved. Local government also provides income generation projects (handicrafts, crop promotion, Royal Projects) to highland communities using the lowland tax-base. Highlanders do not pay taxes.”
Indonesia Team Presentation 
Martin Labo (Head of FoMMA) and Dolvina Damus (Sustainable Park Management Module Leader WWF Indonesia): 
Background: Kayan Mentarang National Park PA – In 1996 the government annexed the PA without the knowledge of the IP living in the area. The IP didn’t find out about the creation of the PA until 1998. At that point a local committee was established, it included: IP, local government, & national government. In 2002 the committee accepted the notion of CM for KMNPPA. This decision was formalized in National Law shortly thereafter.
Co-Management in KMNPPA has 5 major missions:
 .     To ensure sustainable management
 .     To protect biodiversity
 .     To protect CM principles and practice
 .     To optimize education, research and eco-tourism
 .     To protect PA resources based on traditional knowledge of local people, sustainable into the future

The CM Body is the DPK which translates into English as “Decision-Makers of Policy.” The goals of the DPK include: to create a PA management plan; to form policy and implement CM. The DPK includes: National, Provincial & District government; FOMMA; LSM (NGO); and University representatives. They decide policy by consensus
(e.g. approval of the management plan, evaluation of implementation, & advisory role). They meet within the Park boundaries. The DPK is unique in Indonesia as it includes IP representatives through FOMMA. Without this representation on the DPK the IPs would not recognize the National Park. At the local level there is a need for ongoing collaboration to make decisions about park zoning and rules and regulations. The principle of CM needs to function at two levels: national and park levels (policy and practice need to go together).
What is a “customary area” (CA)? 
Any where IP have been living and making livelihood for generations. The Indonesian government recognizes the CA rights in principle but CA rights are not legally recognized. In the Philippines CA rights (to ancestral domain) are legally recognized.
 The United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples (UNDRIP) clearly defines and recognizes CA rights.
With the creation of KMNP there was no change in the rights of the IP – the past practices are able to continue, but now the land-use is made concrete through zoning activities. There are 2 rights – a) Customary Area Rights (areas will be zoned as agriculture, hunting, etc.) & b) Personal Rights (refers to personal homes – if people like they can have their houses excluded from the Park area).
4. Learning by Doing in Co-Management (Session facilitated by Grazia)
Grazia began the presentation by recalling a moment at the previous CMLN Workshop in the Philippines when Khampanh  and Lam reached the understanding that their CM process was actually not as advanced as they had thought. They felt that this was a turning point in their understanding and implementation of CM. The key point being that it is not crucial to be ‘advanced’ but to gain a real understanding of the CM process.
a) Co-managed /shared governance Protected Areas defined: “… government-designated protected areas where decision making power, responsibility and accountability are shared between governmental agencies and other stakeholders, in particular the indigenous peoples and local and mobile communities that depend on that area culturally and/or for their livelihoods”. 
b) Shared governance of protected areas from the perspective of governmental agencies: a continuum of authority, responsibility & accountability.
c) Phases of a co-management/ shared governance process
d) CMLN results and future activities (Phase II & Phase III)
The main products of Phase II: 
 .     the negotiated agreement (e.g., a co-management plan for the protected area + complementary accords + decision to set up one or more pluralist governance bodies…)
 .     the experience of communicating, negotiating, thinking together about the protected area and its resources, changing attitudes, building trust…

Phase III: learning by doing

 “legitimising” the agreement 
 .     recording, celebrating, informing
 implementing the agreement
 .     doing, clarifying, surveying, enforcing…
 maintaining a learning attitude
 .     monitoring, evaluating and improving as learning proceeds (adaptive management and adaptive governance)
 .     participatory action research
 .     inputs; outputs; results; impacts
I. Preparing for the negotiation
II. Negotiating the agreement (about management and governance)
III. Implementing the agreement  and “learning-by-doing”
 .    Situation analysis
 .    Patrimonial vision
 .    Strategy
 .    Facilitation, conflict management towards  a CM AGREEMENT
 .    Celebrating, ritualising, legitimising, diffusing the agreement (about management and governance)
 .     Recording, celebrating, informing, implementing, enforcing, clarifying the agreement…
 .    Participatory action research
 .    Monitoring, evaluating and improving as learning proceeds (adaptive management/ governance)
 .    Start-up Team
 .    Social communication
 .    Organising of IPs and communities
 .    Setting up the negotiation space (rules, procedures, logistics…)
Discussion of Learning By Doing presentation
Evaluation of the CMLN process?
Evaluation times should be planned in advance, but evaluations may also be done at key moments during the process as necessary. If plans changes overtime, the indicators for evaluation change as well. The key is to have flexibility while remaining rigorous e.g. indicators and evaluation to demonstrate why changes to original plan were made.
Indicators within the CMLN process?
Somsak (Rak Thai Representative) commented that indicators depend on the economic situation present in any given area e.g. self-sufficient vs free market (export driven). There are different indicators of people’s satisfaction, requirements for livelihood, etc. Grazia noted that attaching indicators to any phenomena requires reading / understanding that phenomena. Obviously different societies / cultures have different understanding of different phenomena. The significance of indicators is culturally and socially determined, therefore indicators of “impacts” should be decided together as a group. Who sets objectives and goals is fundamental – thus the need for Co-Management.
Prawit noted that it is difficult for villagers to decide which way to go – there is currently much confusion. The ancestors tell people to remain in their area and continue to make their livelihood, but new ideas and understandings of best way to make their livelihood have also entered the community.
Monitoring of the CMLN process?
It was stated that punishment for transgression of the MOU between the Park Authorities and the IP communities should be formalized and followed-up through legal channels. While this is often already the case for community transgressions, it was asked how community members can ensure that Park Authority and government transgressions of the MOU are punished and/or adequately responded to.

 In Cambodia when the PA breaks the law they face severe repercussions from the Cambodian government. Community rangers committing illegal activity have recently been taken to court.
 This point raises the need for transparency and “eyes from the outside” e.g. investigative journalism.
 In Sabah Park once the MOU is legalized staff can be punished, fired, etc. and the government will give compensation to the effected community.
 In the Case of Ob’Luang Park the rules are generally respected by the Park authorities, but some (not all) of the community members do not respect the agreement.
 This issue reinforces the need to write down the agreement on paper, and the need for a celebration where all parties commit to stand by the agreement.
Learning By Doing Activity Part 1
Country teams worked in groups to answer and make presentations on a set of ten questions. 
See Annex 3 for the activity questions.
See Annex 4 for the Country Team Part 1 presentations.
5. Day 3: Field Visit to Ob’Luang National Park
After about 3 hours and a stop for breakfast we arrived in Khun Pae village. We then took 4×4 trucks to the National Park / village demarcation line. The group separated into two smaller groups to walk along the demarcation line.
After lunch there was a Discussion Session about the CMLN negotiation process with village representatives at the community meeting space.
Speech by Pongchai Chuliikornmetta (Vice-Chair Watershed Committee & former Chief of Khun Pae village): 
There is a Karen saying – “You consume water, you must conserve water. You live from the forest, you must conserve the forest.” My grandparents were among the first group to move to this land and they died on this land. I hope to die here as well.
The Karen have traditional wisdom about the creation of fire corridors. Slash and burn agriculture among the Karen is based on a rotational system – leaving land fallow for 4 or 5 years. This allows the natural environment to heal itself, and to be ready to grow rice again in the future. Rice is planted according to traditional rules. For example, areas with springs are off limits to slash and burn agriculture.

Khun Pae resident: There are other taboos relating to slash and burn rice fields. Big trees or trees with multiple trunks are respected and protected by community members. Spring areas as well. Big spirits live in springs, and if you go there the spirit will harm you. This also includes the big animals such as wolves and gibbons and big birds.

Pongchai: Villages have to adjust and readjust themselves to current situation in Thailand regarding rules and laws, the market economy, etc. This has effects regarding natural resource management as well. Karen need to live in clan structure but modern laws etc. have arrived to alter decision-making structures. As well there is now a greater demand for water in the lowland due to increasing industrial agriculture. This water conflict is not sustainable, so we decided to meet and discuss and solve this conflict between highland and lowland communities. Both sides need to understand the others problems. These maps are the result of negotiations between highland and lowland villages and park authorities. The rules and regulations are also posted publicly. The maps may not last forever, but can be readjusted in the future depending on the circumstances.
Hmong village representative: very few settlers at first and self-sufficient agriculture was suitable. But with population growth there was a demand for more land and water. This led to conflict with other communities. Hmong people saw the need to negotiate land-use. Hmong desire to grow more water dependent crops such as Lychee, Longun, coffee, etc.

Hmong village Representative #2: my grandfather grew opium until the creation of the Royal Project, including the introduction of services such as roads and electricity. Slash and burn methods required a lot of land, thus led to conflicts.

Sow Keaw: after opium production was prohibited modern mono-crop methods were offered, including Western style flowers, fruit, etc. This introduction increased water usage. Led to an increase in conflict with lowland communities, and conflict continued for many years.
Question and Answer
The question was asked, what benefits do the highland communities get out of these negotiations? Sow Keaw answered that the villagers get confidence that we can continue using our land. It was asked whether the villagers have received a piece of paper guaranteeing this? The local government representative answered that the actual documents are in the process of being made. It is a complicated process as different Ministries (Forestry, agriculture etc.) do not accept some communities and vice versa. There was some confusion, but not anymore, we invited them all to come to the negotiating table. It was asked whether villagers get a per diem to come to meetings, and do they actually come? They receive no per diem.
The question was asked, what do the lowland communities contribute to the process? Conflict between highland and lowland communities is solved, not through ‘this’ process but through the local administration. Lowland people are more involved in the negotiations than the highland people because they are closer to the place where the meetings take place. Lowland involvement is asking highlanders to stop doing deforestation, but what do they give? The local government representative answered that highlanders don’t pay taxes (as they have no land title). Highlanders get benefits of government programs paid for by the tax base of the lowlanders. The former village chief said that through the negotiation process the highland villagers get understanding, and understanding is more important than money. The lowland people come to witness the demarcation process and understand what the highland people are doing e.g. not being “the destroyers of the forest”. The local government representative said that Highland villagers will get land title in the future, but for the houses only, not for the agricultural fields. The former village chief said that one week ago government surveyors came here and promised to give title and “right to use land” status to paddy field areas. Prawit noted that this is new news to him, and that it is not clear whether this is the result of CM negotiations or because part of this village is outside the National Park.
Jeremy asked, now that the land is demarcated (and cannot increase) do the farmers feel they have enough land to secure their livelihood into the future and are they happy with that. The Hmong representative answered that yes they are happy. There are new crop promotion programs from the lowland, but more important is the understanding we receive from lowland people. The former chief noted that because the land is now limited villagers are no longer living in natural balance. Villagers are obliged to accept crop promotions, but he thinks that these promotions will not work because villagers have
no investment money, no technology, no transportation. These pilot projects come and go. He wants the community’s children to look back at past ways, but not to ‘return’ to traditional life as it was but rather to apply traditional ways of life to the current situation. Take what is useful from crop promotion projects if compatible with traditional ways.
It was asked whether the village self-sufficient in food production. The answer is no, they are directed towards the market economy – cash crops such as cabbage, onions, etc. Prawit noted that villagers are only self-sufficient in rice production – Karen saying that “rice is bigger than god.” But they buy food (vegetable, meat, oil) from markets. Sow Keaw noted that land for cash-cropping is only productive for a couple of years before it needs investments to keep up production levels. This is very risky because people can go into debt. People here are already in debt. The goal should be to be food self-sufficiency. 
It was asked whether there had been any success with experimental crops. Sow Keaw answered that these crops still demand fertilizers and have led to erosion.
6. Reflection on field visit to Khun Pae village and Ob’Luang national park
The debrief session and presentations were based on the following questions:

1) What observations can be made about the negotiation process and the implementation of the agreement?

2) What advice can the country teams give about the future implementation of the CM agreement in Khun Pae village and Ob’Luang national park?

3) Other observations and recommendations?

Observations on Negotiation Process at Ob’Luang National Park:
 .     It is very clear how the zoning / demarcation system works, the boundary between the Customary Area and the NP marked and mapped using GPS.
 .     The village reps, park authority and the local government were able to sit together at negotiating table, and the land-use demarcation was physically done together. 
 .     The village has cash-crop production that lessens their dependence on forest resources. The NP allocates forest area to the village to protect but village receives no financial support e.g. has no incentives.
 .     The situation of IP at Khun Pae in relation to the Thai government is one of ‘zero gain’ e.g. they went from a position of ‘negative’ to ‘zero’. The IP only just had their ancestral rights recognized, and did not receive any further benefits.
 .     Impressive cordial / good working relationship after the negotiation process.
 .     The villagers have maintained traditional culture and customs relating to natural resource management.
Advice about future implementation of CM agreement at Ob’Luang:
 .     Must improve the road – the economic link of the village.
 .     Need to examine the question “Will the village have enough land in the future?”
 .     The process of giving land title to the village will need to carefully consider whether title should be granted ‘inside’ or ‘beside’ the National Park.
 .     Villages should be given proper title.
 .     Authorities should give villagers jobs such as rangers, etc. 
 .     Suggestion to revisit the agreement every five years to assess the supports given to the villagers and their livelihoods.
 .     Suggestion to experiment in combining the best of traditional knowledge and modern knowledge: regular meetings of community as a whole to discuss changes and what they want and don’t want. Choosing the future that the community wants not just accepting what is offered.
 .     Land-use agreement only recognized by the local-level government, not recognized by national-level government. The agreement needs to be legalized
Other observations and recommendations:
 .     The contrast between the traditional and Royal Project agriculture is striking, with the latter heavily dependent on external ideas and inputs.
 .     It is a good idea for the CMLN to organize visits between the Hmong community here and the Hmong community in Vietnam.
 .     Micro-credit and forming of community-based economic units could help villages take a lead into already existing economic opportunities.
 .     There may be resources in the National Park / Village Buffer Zone that villagers could use and potentially market.

 7. Learning By Doing Activity Part 2 – Impact indicators
See Annex 5 for the Learning By Doing Activity Part 2 Country Team presentations.
The major areas of discussion concerning impact indicators were:

 The need to discover the future needs of IP communities and introduce the future considerations of all stakeholders into the negotiation process, e.g. a recognition that the community needs forest land for its livelihood, and that forest land is not simply for the protected area.

 The Vietnam site is similar to the Thailand site as the village agricultural areas are surrounded by forested higher slopes which make up the protected area. The Vietnam team could use the Ob’Luang land-use demarcation scheme as a model for making the boundaries clear and reducing conflict.

 A member of the Thailand team took exception to the use of the term ‘slash and burn’ saying that ‘rotational farming’ is the preferred term as it recognizes this form of agriculture as an effective resource management technique, e.g. in Khun Pae village 200 years ago 60% of the village area was forested and today 60% of the village area is still forested.

 A member of the Thailand team stated that the negotiations involved marking the three traditional forest categories (“cannot touch”; “use-forest” & “farming area”) on the land-use map, but that for the Karen the demarcation and protection of the “cannot use” forest is not a matter of ‘ownership’ but rather of respecting the spirits living there.

 It was asked if Cambodia’s indicator of having “More than 50% of villagers willing to respect regulation” was satisfactory. Was 60% satisfactory? Was 65% satisfactory? Further questions were raised about the decision-making process itself. Decision-making can be based on a vote system where a decision is made but may not be universally respected, or decision-making can be based on a consensus system where a decision is made that the whole community is likely to respect.
8. Phase 3 of Co-Management / Shared Governance – “PA Scenarios: where would we wish to be 20 years from now.” (Session facilitated by Grazia)
Scenarios presentation by Grazia
(Before the presentation there was some discussion about the issue of the translation of the term ‘scenarios’ – time was taken to ensure that all country team had a satisfactory understanding of the concept and an equivalent term in their language.)
Grazia noted that the aim of this activity was to provoke the country teams to think about the global dimensions of the movement for Protect Areas in the past and in the present. There can be a tendency for CMLN teams to only consider their national situation in isolation.

After providing a comprehensive history of “protected areas” – going back to 10,000 B.C. – Grazia outlined four possible scenarios for the future of protected areas. These four possible scenarios are the basis of the next group activity.
Scenario 1:
 .     PAs are under a multiplicity of governance arrangements… Communities, governments and the private sectors, in co-management/shared governance settings or alone, declare and run protected areas…
 .     PAs are integrated into a mosaic of land uses in the landscape/ seascape, change is very much accepted and restoration is widely practiced…
 .     Most PA funding is generated through the ecosystem services they produce… 
Scenario 2:

 Most PAs are governed through local, voluntary arrangements by local communities and indigenous peoples under communal property, very much related to local use of natural resources and production of ecosystem services (water, security, medicinal plants…) 
 PAs run by local wise persons (environmental stewards); rules enforced through local mechanisms, often culture-based (indigenous conserved areas and bio-cultural territories)
 some loss of species, e.g. large mammals, in the transition period (likely disruption and turmoil)…
 Renaissance of indigenous conservation practices… But also reappearance of local conflicts for the control over natural resources…
Scenario 3: 
 .     Most PAs are controlled and governed by the private sector, in a profit-oriented mode…
 .     PAs are a playground for the rich who can pay the entry fees in the few remaining islands of nature in a sea of land transformed by “economic development”
 .     Only the PAs that can pay for themselves survive… The others are abandoned
 .     Branding of PAs… Selling the logos to commercial products…
 .     Gray tourism… “Disneyfication” of nature…
 .     Rare species translocated and bred in semi-captivity… open air zoos far from their places of origin…
Scenario 4:
 .     A new barbarism has emerged… most PAs have fallen in the hands of profiteers and/or corrupt local and national leaders and have been thoroughly exploited…  
 .     Indigenous peoples and local communities have lost most of their culture, knowledge, capacities for self-sufficiency & traditional institutions for natural resource management…  They compete for survival rather than work in solidarity and collaboration…
 .     Nature resists only in places surrounded by fences and heavily guarded… It is biologically impoverished and sickened…
 .     People have even lost the memory of large PAs where people enter freely and enjoy uncontaminated nature…
 .     Global warming and loss of natural resources created serious ecological imbalances & disrupted the living environment and quality of life in major ways…
In the time remaining, the country teams worked on their Scenario presentations to be presented during the morning session of Day 5.
Scenarios Presentation assignment:
Discuss the following questions in your group and identify a few clear strategic directions you would recommend to take to ensure the future that you desire.
 .     In your group’s view, where are we heading?  
 .     What scenario seems the most probable to you?
 .     Where would you like to be heading?
 .     What can we do to enrich the chances to get there? 
Scenario presentations
Vietnam presentation
Most probable: Scenario 1
Most desirable: Scenario 1 (the most appropriate in the case of Vietnam, but without the presence of the private sector in the management of PA).
The three main strategies are:
 .     Build capacity and motivation on the CM approach (of all stakeholders)
 .     Ensure participation of the local community by establishing ‘village institutions’ (community institutions that have existed since a long time ago – orally based forms of institutions)
 .     Influence national PA policy and regulations, including the creation of PA guidelines to encourage the involvement of local communities in management.

The four main actions are: 
 .     Study village livelihoods needs and opportunities, and how this relates to PA management
 .     Build capacity of local communities to monitor the agreement
 .     Ensure that agreement clearly defines the roles, rights and responsibilities of all the stakeholders.
 .     Have annual meetings to review project results (including government officials, journalists, NGOs, etc.).

Thailand presentation
Most probable: Scenario 1 
Most desirable: Scenario 1 (but with an emphasis on “A Better Life quality of communities, Bio-diversity and Co-Management by all parties in a sustainable manner”).
The four main strategies are:
1.     Policy advocacy 
2.     Seek for co-Management Process in all levels
3.     Fund raising for co-Management
4.     Advocating knowledge & the Co-management Model
Cambodia presentation
Most probable: Scenario 3 
Most desirable: Scenario 1 
The four main strategies are:
1.     Ensuring the existence of the NR through development projects; 
2.     Promoting equitable benefit sharing from the NRs; 
3.     Strengthening the local community organization;
4.     Improving the co-management implementation (scale-up) and influence the policy makers to recognize this approach

Malaysia presentation
Most probable: Scenario 1 
Most desirable: Scenario 1 
The nine main strategies are:
1.     Link with other communities who are also proposing to have CUZ MoU discussion & acceptance
2.     Explore/study other approaches
3.     Avoid destructive commercial activities to fund management of PA
4.     CM concept is popularized and accepted by the general public, park authorities, media & community
5.     GEF & funding sources should support co- management of PA.
6.     Capacity building of community and park authority to co-manage the PA
7.     To promote Scenario 1 – the mosaic governance concept to other PA & Reserves
8.     Explore socio-economic alternatives & improve social services in the community with the PA (involve multi-sector / department interdisciplinary cooperation, PES, REDD taking into account ethical & cultural norms of the community)
9.     Awareness to limit our consumerist attitude by revitalizing/maintaining indigenous systems & institutions.
Indonesia presentation
Most probable: Scenario 3
Most desirable: Scenario 1 
The four main strategies are:
1.     Strengthen collaboration intra -and inter- sites (networks of PAs)
2.     Build partnerships with private sector and government
3.     Work on sharing authority
4.     Strengthen civil society
9. Alternatives to CM (presentation by Grazia)
Grazia introduced a new term: Indigenous Community Conserved Areas (ICCA). Some characteristics of ICCAs are:
 .     governance is mostly or entirely in the hands of the communities;
 .     Alternative to CM: in some cases the government could manage alone and in some cases the community could manage on its own; 
 .     in the future there may be confusion between CM and ICCAs.
10. Clustering of future strategies and actions activity (facilitated by Chris Erni)
The brain-storming session highlighted the most important future strategies and actions for CMLN sites:

 capacity / institution building
 strengthening Indigenous institutions / civil society
 sharing power / responsibilities (core of CM)
 public relations & monitoring
 revitalizing IP systems and values
 political advocacy
 assessing livelihood needs & exploring socio-economic alternatives
 linkages between CM sites / communities
It is clear that there are many common approaches among CMLN sites. These clusters will play an important role in the planning of the next phase of CMLN activity.
11. Review of Goals from CMLN Phase 1(facilitated by Jeremy)
The current overall aim of the CMLN project is defined as being:
“to create win-win situations for conservation agencies and indigenous communities in protected areas to conserve Southeast Asia’s rich biodiversity while safeguarding the rights and concerns of the indigenous peoples.”
Discussion on the overall aim of CMLN: 
 .     Jeremy commented that the term “collaborative management” was not included. 
 .     Christina noted that it would be good to see more of the key words used in the previous clustering activity.
 .     Chris responded that having an “overall aim” that was fairly general was in fact desirable.
 .     Christina said that the aim seemed restricted to conservation authorities and IP communities, and asked will these the only / main actors in the future? She also noted that the aim could be more explicit in explaining what “win-win” implies.
 .     Grazia asked whether CMLN should continue the focus on CM or open-up to other PA management options such as ICCAs and government-directed management situations with a participatory approach?
 .     Chris reiterated whether in CMLN Phase 2 the aim should expand to include ICCAs or stay strictly with CM situations?
 .     Jannie noted that in ICCAs the governance lies with communities, and that in past experience it was difficult to conceive of ICCAs inside of PAs. Therefore, CMLN will need to ask whether we are to include ICCAs outside of PAs, and further will the focus of the CMLN remain on PAs or expand to the wider landscape?
 .     Grazia responded that yes right now most ICCAs are not registered as PAs, but that a key recognition of the CBD is to recognize ICCAs as part of PA systems while maintaining their traditional governance structures. The international legal structure is there, do we want to look to the future – ICCAs are cutting edge.
 .     Christina suggested the following changes to the
overall aims

to create win-win situations for all stakeholders including indigenous communities in key biodiversity landscapes to conserve Southeast Asia’s rich biodiversity while safeguarding the rights and concerns of the indigenous peoples.” (These were
generally approved of but the final decision was left to the steering committee, who will then bring the new wording back to the entire CMLN for approval.)
Time was taken to reflect on the previous discussion within the CMLN country team groups.
Country Team perspectives on broadening the overall aims of CMLN in phase 2:
Vietnam: Will be difficult to include ICCAs at the regional level. In Vietnam there are plans to incorporate ICCA within PA borders.
Indonesia: We would like to expand overall aim to include ICCAs. This would be relatively easy as there are many opportunities, and work is already being done in this area in Indonesia.
Malaysia: We first asked ourselves “are CUZs ICCAs?” Is it possible to have an ICCA in Sabah Park? outside the Park? We concluded that this would be a lot of work. We then asked ourselves “would broadening the scope enrich the process?” We concluded that yes this will enrich our understanding of different conservation methods. We did not have time to reach a final decision on this issue.
Cambodia: Yes, there is potential to expand the scope to include ICCAs. In Cambodia PAs are under authority of Ministry of Environment, whereas other areas are under authority of Ministry of Forestry and Agriculture. The Ministry of Forestry already has plans to promote decentralization of forest management under the broad title of Community-Based Forest Management. Therefore we would need to think about the implications of broadening the scope of CMLN in the current Cambodian context.
Thailand: In the past most communities had ICCAs, but the government did not recognize them. During the CM-period the government was more responsive and we had successful negotiations. At this time CM is a better focus for Thailand, although possibly at a later date the inclusion of ICCA could be a good idea.
Grazia noted that an ICCA is the equivalent of the term Karen term “DOOTA” referring to areas where ancestors are buried and areas where there are springs. These areas should be recognized as ICCAs by the government. The inclusion of ICCA would not be going against CM, but broadening the scope of recognition by the government.
Chris noted that there was a general recognition that ICCAs are valuable to promote, but that there were clearly local differences among the countries in the region, and that the achievement of the overall goals will clearly need to be accomplished in ways suitable to the local context. 
He suggested a compromise: yes, we broaden the scope, but that the actual focus of country teams will be decided by them. This will allow for CMLN discussions to include, but not be exclusively focused on, ICCAs and other shared governance models.
There was general agreement with Chris’s proposed compromise.
12. Review of Project Objectives from CMLN Phase 1 (session facilitated by Jeremy)
Review of the existing Project Objectives
The groups agreed that Project Objectives 1,2, & 3 remain relevant and should not be changed.
Discussion on broadening the existing Project Objectives
 It was noted that the existing Objectives do not cover the priority activities of “assessing livelihood needs & exploring socio-economic alternatives” that was highlighted in the morning session. In order to narrow the scope of these activities it was decided that the CMLN should focus on livelihood needs and socio-economic alternatives that are directly related to greater IP self-governance and are compatible with conservation practices. The group expressed some hesitation about the CMLN becoming too involved in socio-economic development schemes as there will inevitably be overlap with existing community-led and state-led schemes. There was some discussion about including the notion of alternative IP values and development model, potentially across all of the Objectives. The group tentatively agreed that Objective 4 will read “Strengthen IP organisations through securing their economic basis as well as the economic basis of community livelihoods in harmony with their unique values and aspirations.”
 The idea of the CMLN taking on a greater role as a regional coordinating body was discussed. The group tentatively agreed that Objective 5 will read “Strengthening in-country and regional Networks.”
In CMLN Phase 2 there will be 5 Projects Objectives:
 .     Objective 1: Supporting CM practice in relevant field-based initiatives in the selected sites;
 .     Objective 2: Enhancing capabilities to develop and maintain collaborative management practices (policies, processes, agreements and institutions) among field-based practitioners in the selected sites;
 .     Objective 3: Enhancing understanding, awareness and recognition of CM practices in the selected sites and beyond;
 .     Objective 4: Strengthen IP organisations through securing their economic basis as well as the economic basis of community livelihoods in harmony with their unique values and aspirations; 
 .     Objective 5: Strengthen in-country and regional Networks.
13. Future structure of CMLN: review of Phase 2 proposal (session facilitated by Jeremy)
1) Need for regional CMLN coordinator at AIPP (or alternative project holder)?
There was a general consensus on the need for a regional CMLN coordinator at the AIPP office. The regional coordinator would fulfill the following needs: 

 .     apply for funding for CMLN sites without independent funding 
 .     distribute funds to CMLN sites
 .     facilitate communication between CMLN sites (multiple languages)
 .     facilitate the provision of technical support to CMLN sites
 .     organize regional meetings
 .     represent CMLN at the regional level
2) Specific role of regional CMLN coordinator in fund raising and administration?
There was general consensus that CMLN should continue with the existing centralized fund raising and funding administration / distribution structure that allows for some degree of additional country-specific third party funding. The existing structure was seen as optimal for the following reasons:
 .     Some CMLN country teams appreciate the direct assistance of the Regional Coordinator in securing funding
 .     Sabah Parks Malaysia cannot legally receive non-governmental funding therefore it is necessary that the Malaysia country team can receive funding as part of the CMLN
 .     Some country teams would like to receive some funding directly from their (country specific) third party donors
 .     There is a possibility that regional CMLN priorities will get less attention if funding is completely autonomous

3) Other expectations of regional CMLN coordinator?
There was general consensus on the following expectations:
 .     fund raising and financial administration
 .     general coordination (e.g. facilitating information sharing; facilitation of exchange visits)
 .     technical support and training (e.g. technical guidelines on CM issues; planning for capacity building activities; translation; establishment of partnerships between CMLN sites & other organizations; facilitation of regional / international networking; advocacy at international level)
4) Nature of regional coordinator?
There was some debate about the idea of creating a rotating IP coordinating team. Two potential regional CMLN coordinator scenarios were settled upon: a) one regional coordinator and one assistant & b) a rotating IP coordination team. It was decided to leave the final decision to the Advisory committee. 
5) Should AIPP be requested to continue as CMLN project holder?
Indonesia: supports AIPP as project holder
Malaysia: supports AIPP as project holder
Cambodia: not sure what AIPP has been doing, so we are undecided
Vietnam: supports AIPP as project holder
Thailand: supports AIPP as project holder
14. Key decisions on future goals and structure of CMLN
Aims and Objectives of CMLN in Phase 2
Overall Aim: The new overall aim is “to create win-win situations for all stakeholders including indigenous communities in key biodiversity landscapes to conserve Southeast Asia’s rich biodiversity while safeguarding the rights and concerns of the indigenous peoples.” This overall aim (or a slight variation thereof) will be officially approved at the next Steering Committee meeting. 
Project Objectives: The wording of CMLN’s Long-term Objective and Objectives 1-3 were changed slightly to reflect the current situation. In addition, Objectives 4&5 were created in recognition that the scope of the CMLN has been expanded. The final wording for the Project Objectives will be:
 .     The long-term objective is to promote and strengthen sound governance of conserved areas (e.g. shared governance of PAs and ICCAs) in Southeast Asia where indigenous peoples live. 

The immediate or project objectives;
 .     Objective 1: Supporting CM practice in relevant field-based initiatives in the selected sites;
 .     Objective 2: Enhancing capabilities to develop and maintain collaborative management practices (policies, processes, agreements and institutions) among field-based practitioners in the selected sites;
 .     Objective 3: Enhancing understanding, awareness and recognition of CM practices in the selected sites and beyond;
 .     Objective 4: Strengthen IP organisations through securing their economic basis as well as the economic basis of community livelihoods in harmony with their unique values and aspirations;
 .     Objective 5: Strengthening in-country and regional Networks.
Future structure of CMLN in Phase 2
1) Decision on Need for regional coordinator: there is a clear consensus on the need for some central coordination. There is some difference on details of structure and actual responsibilities of CMLN coordinator. The new Objective #5 also points to desire for central coordination. Having the IP coordination team in charge of the network, possibly with rotating coordinator position, is generally accepted as a good idea.
2) Decision on Role of central coordinator in fund raising and administration: all teams prefer that fund raising and financial management happens through a centralized CMLN coordination team / coordinator located at the project holders office. Sites will do CMLN activities and report back.
3) Decision on Other expectations of CMLN regional coordinator
There was general consensus on the three following expectations:

 fund raising and financial administration
 general coordination (e.g. facilitating information sharing; facilitation of exchange visits)
 technical support and training (e.g. technical guidelines on CM issues; planning for capacity building activities; translation; establishment of partnerships between CMLN sites & other organizations; facilitation of regional / international networking; advocacy at international level)
4) Decision on Nature of regional coordinator: two potential regional coordinator scenarios were put forward – a) retain current arrangement with one regional coordinator and one assistant, & b) create a rotating (every 6 months or year) IP coordination team. The Advisory committee will deliberate further on the two potential regional coordinator scenarios. CMLN members can provide feedback through their local coordinator.
5) Decision on Role of AIPP: four of the country teams support AIPP as the CMLN project holder. One team was undecided at this time. The Advisory committee will deliberate further on this issue.
15. Conclusion
 The success of Phase 1 of the CMLN Project was seen in the ability of the country teams to work together to share and reflect on their experiences of the Co-Management process during this 4th Regional Workshop. The ability of Indigenous Peoples representatives and Park Authority representatives to work as a unified team is a sign that future Protected Area Co-management activities – at the pilot sites and beyond – will be built on a strong foundation. This spirit of mutual respect and power-sharing is at the heart of the CMLN process. Phase 1 has successfully tested the possibilities for collaboration in PA management. Several advantages of this approach have been identified and several challenges remain for fuller implementation. Phase 2 will build on both the strengths and challenges indentified and in particular will try and raise the awareness of decision makers of the possibilities and benefits of collaborative management approaches.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *


This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.